Why is Python popular, while Lisp and Scheme aren't?
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
mertz at gnosis.cx
Sun Dec 1 13:18:38 EST 2002
More information about the Python-list mailing list
Sun Dec 1 13:18:38 EST 2002
- Previous message (by thread): Why is Python popular, while Lisp and Scheme aren't?
- Next message (by thread): Why is Python popular, while Lisp and Scheme aren't?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Kenny Tilton <ktilton at nyc.rr.com> wrote previously: |>>The bottom line is that no regular Lisper is bothered by parens [...] |Anders J. Munch wrote: |> Or to put it another way, noone who is bothered by parens becomes a |> regular Lisper. Kenny Tilton <ktilton at nyc.rr.com> wrote previously: |Cute, but I will go out on a limb and say no one who tried Lisp and |liked it was driven away by parens. Well... isn't that -exactly- Anders point (and the point of the other 99.9% of programmers who don't use Lisp)?! Most people who tried Lisp didn't like it BECAUSE of the parens. They drive away programmers like me... ones who otherwise like multi-paradigm languages, functional coding, dynamic typing, etc. Python I love. Haskell looks really cool (but admittedly I haven't done anything real with it). Ruby has an appeal. Smalltalk, ditto. I've even written some Perl code. But despite (or because of) reading several popular and widely recommended Lisp books, I just cannot look at it for very long -because of the parens-. The thing is, I really WANT to like Lisp. I just cannot seem to force myself to. Then again, emacs also seems like a strange, unmanageable monstrosity... so I guess those go hand in hand. Yours, Lulu... P.S. I think I've mentioned this analogy before, but I guess I will again. Slavoj Zizek discusses Pascal's Wager. To wit: Pascal argues that belief in God/Xtianity is a good way of playing the odds: if you are wrong, you were foolish during life, then you are dust; if you are right, eternal salvation and all that (yeah, I know the flaws in the probabalistic argument). But Zizek claims that the naive understanding misses Pascal's reversal: No one who does not already believe will be convinced by the Wager as an argument... rather the Wager makes profound sense to those who -already believe-. If only I could -believe- that all the parens make things easier, then I would be able to understand how much easier they make things :-). -- ---[ to our friends at TLAs (spread the word) ]-------------------------- Echelon North Korea Nazi cracking spy smuggle Columbia fissionable Stego White Water strategic Clinton Delta Force militia TEMPEST Libya Mossad ---[ Postmodern Enterprises <mertz at gnosis.cx> ]--------------------------
- Previous message (by thread): Why is Python popular, while Lisp and Scheme aren't?
- Next message (by thread): Why is Python popular, while Lisp and Scheme aren't?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-list mailing list